It's Hard to be a Bear Right Now

Joshua Younger, head of U.S. interest rate derivatives strategy at J.P. Morgan, joined to talk about the worst quarter for Treasuries since 1980. Yesha Yadav, law professor at Vanderbilt Law School and former legal counsel for the World Bank, discussed the volatility in Treasuries and the impact of the lack of regulation in the space. Unison Advisors founder and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Nir Kaissar explained why it's hard to be bear right now. Then Priyanka Desai, a member of the NFT-focused DAO or decentralized autonomous organization Flamingo, came on to talk about the new NFT craze and how people can participate.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to Would You Miss This Week? I'm Joe Wisenhal.
This podcast has some of our favorite interviews from the
Daily Market Clothes Show that I co anchor along with
Romaine Bostick and Caroline Hyde. What Do You Miss? It's
the perfect way to kick off your weekend. This week,
the reflation trade put US treasuries on track for their
worst quarter since nineteen eighty, with the global bond plunge

(00:29):
sending yield surging to pre pandemic levels. So we got
some perspectives on these moves from Joshua Younger, head of
US Interest Rate to Relative Strategy at JP Morgan, and
we started by asking him if this is just the
market recognizing that the U s economy is growing much
more rapidly than we thought just a few months ago.

(00:49):
So I should say I wasn't alive in nineteen eighties,
so I can't really think that the song um a
couple of years later. For me. What happened this quarter,
I think was a recognition and that things have changed.
So not only treasuries have had a record quarter, but
also our Forecast Revision Index, which tracks how we change
our growth forecasts states and for the world. That's had

(01:10):
its best quarter since we started tracking those numbers. So
the move and treasury yields, like you said, it is
rapid and large, but the move and the expectations has
been the same. Um. I think the thing to keep
in mind is that this has not been a real
yield move. This has been mostly an inflation expectations move.
And there's a lot of stuff coming down the pike.

(01:30):
You were just talking about an infrastructure plan that's ten
plus of GDP. I mean, that's a lot of physical impulse.
It's a lot of inflationary pressure. Uh, It's it's going
to take a little while to see if it flows through.
But it makes sense that yield should be higher and
term printing and richer if there's this risk out there. Yeah, Josh,
I mean this seems like, you know, the kind of
moving yields that that is a positive or at least

(01:51):
the underlying reasons are relatively positive. Of course, that doesn't
mean that folks in the market are going to freak
out because they need something to freak out on a
daily basis. All the talk right now is about convexity
about as as Taylor Riggs would say, you know, it's
about the pace of change that maybe is a little
bit of concerning here. What are you seeing with regards
to the pace of these moves and what that could

(02:12):
mean for the positioning some folks had prior to the
start of this. So I think the freak out you're
describing us mostly talk at this point, and the moving
yields has again been been healthy. It reflects a real
change in the outlook and the convexity hedgers the people
who have hedge, whether they like it or not, and
ultimately end up chasing the market. We just don't see
much sign of that. There's been some rebalancing and reallocation

(02:35):
that makes sense when you have this kind of repricing,
but things like mortgage headers, things like ct as, they
play a role. But broadly speaking, moven yields has been fundamental.
So I think the question is not yields moved a
lot and quickly, it's are they disconnected from the fundamental outlook,
because that's ultimately what markets should reflect. So talk to us.

(02:55):
You know, there's some we're talking about it earlier in
our last block, this idea that at certain levels the
tendure yield starts to look more attractive to foreign hedge buyers,
and some people say we're there or we're getting close
to their who is at one point seven or roughly
where it is? How does the math work from your
perspective such that UH, foreign investors can get a good

(03:17):
pick up and yield by going into U S treasuries. Yea,
So it's not just the level, it's it's the hedge level,
the FX hedge level. So if I'm a yend based investor,
I ultimately want yen because that's what I pay my
taxes and that's what I'm spend in the store. Right, So, UM,
the environment we're in is quite productive for a foreign
investor who wants to hedge it back to their home
currency dollar assets because the curve is very steep. So

(03:40):
there's short term rates are very low compared to long
term rates like the tenure note UH, and there's a
ton of cash in the system that can flow around.
There's a ton of dollars in circulation, mostly due to
the defense, expansion of its balance sheet and various liquidity facilities.
So it's relatively inexpensive to hedge for an exchange risk UH,
and yields are relatively high compared to that cost. So
I think broadly speaking, we're there in terms of attractiveness.

(04:03):
It's it's looked attractive for a little while. It's been
i should say, much more attractive in the past. We're
kind of looking at a levels for for a foreign
private investor to hedge it back to yen, euros, sterling,
other major major pairs. That plays a role, but ultimately
those flows are not, you know, at least in our
few big enough to drive rate levels. It's more about

(04:24):
the pricing of those foreign exchange futures and forwards, which
is important in a big part of cross border capital flows.
But ultimately the thing that's going to stop this sell
off is probably not going to be a foreign buyer.
A good great point with regards to just liquidity conditions overall,
have financial conditions, I mean, there doesn't. There seems to
be some concern here about I guess that that that

(04:45):
could tighten or in some meaningful way. There doesn't appear
to be anything right now on the horizon, but do
you anticipate that with some of the UH with some
of this recovery trade and some of the reflation trade
that we're seeing, that that could crop up that could
be an issue on the road could. I think broadly speaking,
liquidity has done pretty well all things considered. Uh, the

(05:06):
participation of high frequency traders is something we tracked very closely,
because if there's a hundred dollars on the screen to trade,
eighty of that typically is coming from a high frequency
style trader. That includes the PTFs, that sort of Citadels
and virtues of the world. That also includes banks like
JP Morgan who have automated trading systems. So those participants,
those liquidity providers that really drive the ability to transact

(05:29):
at size and at low transaction cost in the treasury market.
They came. They pulled back a bit in late February
when we had that twenty basis point day, but it
was very short lived there back to where they are
on a typical day at this point. So even though
depth is lower, the microstructure of the market, the the
underlying availability of liquidity is actually pretty good. I think

(05:51):
it's it's something we're not particularly concerned about. The only
thing I would I would really point to is the
risk of jumps has increased, so price actually and over
the course of the day is pretty gappy. That's been
a long term trend. It really corresponds to how liquidity
is distributed through the order book. Um. But but at
the end of the day, when when prices are gappy,
the ability of high frequency traders to make markets is less.

(06:14):
And if you get some exhaugenous shock, which in this
case could be anything, it could be something to to
the Barris side for growth, the bullish side for treasury,
some some potential growth scare would be very hard for
markets to digest at this point. Do you have the
theory for what that is, for what might have changed
such that prices are more jump risks are more of
a jump risk. Yeah, So I think it's this this

(06:36):
growth in high frequency trading activities. So ten years ago
they were half the market now, and it's very hard
to be a high frequency trader really close to the
traded level during very volatile time. So so liquidity tends
to pull back and basically is only available far from
the current currently traded price, at least in size, and
that means there's an air gap between the current the

(06:57):
current market level and all of that available liquidity. The
potential to intermediate is just kind of disconnected a little
bit more from current market prices. With regards to just
we talk a lot here about what's happening on the
longer end of the curve, of course, and on what
course what the Fed can control at the shorter end
of the curve. A lot of traders have been pointing
out what's been going on with the five year and
what's been going on kind of in the middle part there,

(07:19):
and some of the risk that they're starting to see
there that maybe the rest of us aren't paying attention to. Yeah,
the lung and is interesting because you ultimately have demographic
type demand from pensions and long term investors in insurance
companies and so forth. So when rates rise, there's natural
demand that comes into the market from that category that
the demographic demand component. The belly is really where it's

(07:40):
most sensitive to the Fed outlook. So if we think
the Fed is gonna hike at some point in the
next two, three, maybe four years, as we move, as
the market moves around that expected first height date, the
fair value for that five year treasury note can move
around quite a bit. So you're very sensitive to the
policy outlook. And at this point, as much as pal
is out there saying they're not gonna hike anytime soon,

(08:02):
there's a big difference between two, three, four, and five
years until the next hike, and we just have very
little sense of how things are going to play out
over those kinds of timelines. Uh. Final question here, I
think we talked over a week ago, right after that
FED decision where they're not going to extend the SLR exemption,
and that got people interested in this stuff for about
thirty minutes, wondering what that meant for banks and raids

(08:24):
and their balance sheet constraints. Now that there's been a
little time to digest it and get a sense of
how banks are going to react to the news, what
do we see, what do you see as the impact,
and where might had show up and pricing in certain
parts of the market. So I don't think you'll see
it show up immediately or necessarily at all. I mean
remember SLR, the supplementary leverage ratio was in place in

(08:46):
its prior format for many years before the events of March,
and so this is about underlying vulnerability, and it's about
how banks would react to an exogenous shock of sufficient size.
And I think the key here is in the absence
of those carve outs, especially for the market making part
of a bank operation there's this risk that it's going

(09:09):
to be hard to intermediate during periods of acute stress,
and the level of stress that rises to that has
kind of come down, Meaning a smaller shock relative to
last year would probably generate a similar outcome, but it's
still a very large shock. We're not there yet. I mean,
this is a healthy, fast, but but totally understandable repricing
in the rates market. This is not some exogenous factor

(09:31):
that's kind of coming out of nowhere like COVID, where
you have to expectations in a week um to two
very different levels. Now, the first quarter saw a lot
of volatility in the treasury markets, especially around the one
year anniversary of the treasury market blow up. Last Mark,
we spoke about the disruption we've seen in the treasury
market with Vanderbilt Law School professor yesh Yatov Yesha formerly

(09:55):
worked as legal counsel at the World Bank and its finance,
Private Sector, Development, and Infrastructure. You the regulation of this
market is really a five alarm fire at this point. UM.
The way in which this market is really regulated is
not set up um to give regulators the opportunity and
the equipment to be able to see the risk that
are developing in a treasury market that has become highly automated, interconnected,

(10:20):
and sophisticated. And so what we're seeing today is a
market structure that basically lacks very very core guard rails
that are present and common in other marketplaces like equities
and durvatives. So what we have have here in the
treasury space is a market that does not have a
lead prime re coordinating regulator. Unlike equities and durvatives, the

(10:41):
treasury market regulation is divided between either more regulators, lone
of which have any kind of lead and coordinating authorities.
What we have here is a system in which is
very very hard work to come up with even very
basic laws to be able to guarden and sit by
the market. When we talk about some of the regulation
or the lack of regulatory issues here, yesha, I am
curious about whether the risk. I mean, we know when

(11:03):
we talk about equities, we talk about derivatives, we the
risk is pretty apparent and what you do with there.
When we talk about the treasury market and we talk
about bond markets, the risk tends to be a little
bit lower. So maybe there's an argument that you can
make there that maybe you don't need the same regulation.
Thanks so much for saying that remains. I mean and
that and I think that is the assumption that has
guided regulation in the past. UM. This is a risky

(11:24):
asset UM. It has historically been traded by primary dealers
over the counter, and so this market has been relatively
sleepy and simple UM in its in its market structure.
But that has changed radically over the last decade or so.
We have seen a market that has automated rapidly. It's
now a market that is dominated by hyperquncy trading UM.
Sevent of this market in the inti dealer space is

(11:47):
the hyprequency market. And so the risk that we see
just operationally logistically up and to liquidity in the equities
and jersy space that have arisen on account of this
changing market structure, on account of automation a HF teen
into connection UM is something that we're also going to
see and have to see in the U S treasury market. UM.
This became very apparent in the context of the flash

(12:08):
rally in two thousand and fourteen when the pricing became
disrupted UM. And still there's no explanation as to why
UM and we've had an outage in the U S.
Treasury market in the India dealer market in the major
platform broke a tack in two thousand uh and nineteen UM.
In addition, obviously, we also have had this major blow
up that happened in March last last year, and that

(12:31):
isn't risen on account of the liquidity pressures that are
becoming endemic in this market, the fact that we're seeing
liquidity essentially disappear UM and that has cost to price
stability UM. This is the market that is supposed to
perform when every other market is collapsing and so UM.
There our appetite and tolerance for any kind of risk
in this market, be a logistical operational arising on account

(12:54):
of a very automated market structure, or liquidity based risk
that arise on account of having um sudden disappearances and liquidity.
These are risks that we can absolutely not tolerate in
the U. S. Treasury market. We cannot tolerate. The market
is certainly not here. So in your view, structurally, what
would be the biggest first step that we could do
to eliminating, if not all, the risks is you're probably

(13:17):
never going to perfectly eliminate all market structure risk. But
there's sort of like the biggest ones that are out there. Well,
I think, you know, the first step here is to
get regulators on board. On the same page. Yesterday, as
we saw Chare Yellen had come up with a list
of five priorities for the episode for the Financial Stability
Oversight Council, and I think respect collation needs to add

(13:37):
one more, which is to bring the U. S. Treasury
market structure regulation under the purview of a guiding authority,
of coordinating authority, and I think in this case the
Financial Stability Oversight Council, the episode is a great candidate.
And why we need that is to have regulators to
come on board together to come up with the plan
um to understand how this market works. And I don't
think fully that we have an idea here. And the

(13:59):
reason why don't have an idea here is because we
don't have information. Um. So John Romagnetude asked earlier, this
is a market that lacks fundamental guard rails, and one
of them is a lack of reporting in this market.
In two thousand and seventeen, we had a reform to
bring greater reporting into this market, but it's by no
means comprehensive. We are having major, significant systemic gaps here

(14:21):
PTFs UM, many of whom don't report to FINDRA, do
not have to report their trades directly. In addition, hedge
funds that do not come under the pot view of
FINDRA do not report their trades. So the blow up
that you mentioned last year with the cash based its futures,
we still don't know what the impact of that trading
was in this space because we just don't have the information.
So a first step here, I think would be to

(14:43):
bring regulators on board under the f stock and then
I think we need to consider a whole bunch of
other reforms to put them on the table u to
to to bring just a basic sense of safeguarding, safeguarding
and security to this market. Go ahead, we have about
one minute left. I am curious. I mean, can you
give us kind of a specific idea of what one
of those reforms would be. Well, I think, you know,

(15:04):
one of the reforms to tackle the lack of liquidity
or the disappearing liquidity in this market is to think
about informative market making obligations for one UM. So you know,
we did have a specialist system in which traders were
required to stay on the on the market in times
of trouble, and I wonder whether it's time to think
about that again in the constients of US Treasury market specifically.
And the reason for that is is that this market

(15:26):
has to work. Balance sheets have to be equipped to
deal with the kind of pressures that come up when
the markets in distress and so happening in a formative
market making obligation here for both h f T s
and bank dealers is something that I think should be
on the table. And markets ended the short and trading
week on a high note, with the SMP hitting four thousand,

(15:49):
the benchmark notching another record, closing above the record for
the first time ever. If you look at the estimates
of the SMP five hundred, it's only more optimism that
analysts see. From here, we got a recap on the
first quarter and the outlook for the path ahead for Marcus.
But in your case, Sar, he's the founder of Unison Advisors,
is also a Bloomberg Opinion calls. We started by asking

(16:10):
near how hard it is to be a bear? Right now? Yeah,
I have to say I'm not sure that I could
say it any better than that. That's exactly it, all right,
thank you coming on here, got a collar a day
from here. You know, this has all the markings of
an early recovery. I mean, it just looks just like
an earlier recovery. You have a broad reflation of stocks

(16:31):
across the board. You can see that in the first quarter.
If you compare the SP hundred equal weight index to
the broad est BEFO hundred um. You know, the equal
weight index one by a good margin. That tells you that,
you know, this early recovery is lifting you know, stocks
across the board. You can see that as you mentioned
in the earnings expectations. You know, we had EPs on
the hundred of roughly one twenty last year, and the

(16:52):
expectation for two is close to two hundred. I mean
it's a year it's almost a doubling of earning. So
that's that's hugely bullish. The only exception is valuations. I mean,
usually in this part of the cycle you have beaten
down valuations. In this case, the valuations are near whether
they were at the top of the dot com. But
and by the way, interestingly, if you look back at
dot com, the dot this looks like dot Com in

(17:14):
also in the sense that in two thousand and two,
when dot Com had bottomed and things started to turn around,
the SMP was roughly as expensive as it is today.
That's highly unusual. This case and the dot Com episode
are really the only two you can point to in
modern history for that. And we've talked to a lot
of people here near who have tried to draw comparisons

(17:34):
here to some of the market and more importantly, some
of the economic cycles that we saw in the sixties
and also in the forties. The idea here that there's
something uh, much larger and much more structural taking place
right now in the economy that is not only going
to justify some of these valuations but sort of take
us to the moon, as Taylor would say, uh, and
that might itself might sort of at least put off

(17:54):
whatever correction would ever come somewhere far, far far down
the road. Well, I'm mean, yeah, it all depends ultimately,
I think on two things. You know, what whether the
whether the earnings estimates come through, and ultimately how investors
feel about it, what price tag they're willing to put
on those earnings. And the reason I think the point
about correction can't be made enough? Is that Usually when

(18:17):
people say things like you know, you know, I'm pointing
out the fact that the market is historically expensive. Usually
I find that investors here that and they say, oh,
a crash has coming, a correction is coming. And I
think it's worth always repeating that. It means nothing of
the sort. I mean, there's nothing that we have that
will tell us in the near term what is going
to happen to stock prices, not valuations, not in any
other signal as far as I can tell. And so

(18:38):
what it does mean, though, is it tells you something
about the expected returns. And if you just break those
out in terms of dividends, earnings growth, and the changes
in the valuation. Here's my math. The dividendield right now
is about one and a half percent. He earning growth
since nineteen ninety has been about five percent a year.
If you assume that's going to continue here at six
and a half. Now, what's gonna happen? Do you think
valuations will expand from here? I think it's highly likely

(19:00):
because they're already at stark highs. So if they don't
know where you're looking at the SUCCA percent return if
they if they if they contract, you're looking at the
lower return the next So to me, that's the useful
takeaway from all this and the and in the near term,
you know, the price will do what I'll do. You know,
I don't understand the valuations being similar to dot com levels,
like because I remember like that here, like that's sort

(19:21):
of when I first got interested in markets, and there
was so much like absolute garbage. And not only was
their total garbage listed, they had huge market caps and
like you look at some of these stocks that are
like it seem kind of bubbly today, like some of
these like fuel cell companies, some of them were treated
back then except their market cap for like eighty times bigger,
and they weren't making any money back then either. So

(19:44):
is it you know, like, is it that the SMP
five hundred specifically looks compartable valuations, But then if you
just added the thousand dot com I p o s
in like, help me reconcile this, because it still feels
like there's just no way this market is as expensive
as back then. Well, it depends how you look at it.
I mean, all of that, all of that I think
is is true in the sense that first of all,

(20:06):
every market is different, right, so if you peel back
the layers, you're gonna notice the pricing is different in
different places. For example, a lot of people have pointed
out that this expensive this market is. Yes, it's expensive,
but a lot of companies in this market, or you know,
certainly during the pandemic and before, have made tons of money,
whereas notably, there are a lot of big cab companies
during the run to the dot com that weren't making

(20:27):
any money. So that's a huge distinction. And there's a
bunch of other distinctions. If you look at a sort
of stock by stock comparison, you will notice those differences.
But in my view, I think the only thing that
really matters is what is the price tag ultimately that
that investors are putting on the earnings of the market
more broadly, because most people own the broad market right there,

(20:47):
not individually picking stocks, although I get that more people
are doing that, And when you look at that measure,
it looks almost identical at the top of the dot
com and and just real quickly here, I mean with
regards to the moves that we've seen in yields and
the way that that has spooked some people. This idea
here that you could start to see someone wrote erosion
in any sort of earnings growth that we do get.

(21:08):
How are how are you looking at the balance between
that rising yields and everything else? Well, I mean, that's
that's going to be problematic. Not only the rising yields
could be a threat to earnings, but you know Biden's
plans to raise corporate tax rates. Um, you know, that
could be a threat to earnings. And I think I
think you have to consider all that as an investor
because ultimately, you know, when when earnings, when the earnings

(21:31):
forecast is so bullish, there's I think more problem. There's
a greater probability that things could go wrong, and particularly
in this environment with the rates going higher and the
aggressive posture by government, you know, I think that there
is a higher probability than usual to start with. So
investors really have to think about that, and I think
that goes to the price tag that they're parting on earnings.
My guess is they're going to rethink that valuation level.

(21:53):
But that's just a guess now. And as to these
non fungible tokens, that's become the hot new acronym. Mars House,
the world's first new digital n f T home, has
recently sold for worth than five dollars. The New York
Times columnists wrote about end ties and then optioned off

(22:13):
the pieces, and n f T said now even wrapped
about n f T. So to learn more about them,
we caught up with prective decide who is a member
of the n f T focused DOW or decentralized autonomous
organization called Flamingo. We started by asking Preanca to explain
what an n f T focused now really is and
how one goes about participating. It's a great question and

(22:37):
n f T s are all the rage. I'm sure
you're aware right now. Um So, dow's literally stand for
a decentralized autonomous organization. You can kind of think of
them as curators or tastemakers of this emergent art landscape
that we're seeing. Their headless organizations and there is no leaders.
So basically people come together pull their capital and then

(22:59):
democratically vote on where that capital goes, and they basically
use it as a way to crowdsource various collection strategies
through through a completely democratic system. So be undemocratic for
a moment for us and just give us your viewpoint,
because I know you can't speak for the rest of
your tub, but be a taste maker for us. I mean,

(23:20):
initially I got it. I saw the digital art which
you could own, and then you're gonna have these beautiful
main like TV schemes basically show them. I understood the
connection with music. I understood the collectibles, and but then
we get into fake houses and into n f t
s made of tweets and of stories, and I'm understanding
how that is a trend and how it's something that

(23:42):
you think will sell. I mean, I guess it's beauty
is in the eye of the beholder, really, I mean,
people are excited here, and when you're getting an n
f T, you're getting a token that's tied to a
media object like art, music and really anything else, any
digital content. So you know, people want to see value,
and I think that's great. Um, Like a lot of
asset classes, I think there's a lot of value floating around.

(24:04):
But what's really kind of beautiful about n f T
s is, um you know, it's giving creative workers in
this creative class online that we've just seen bubble over
over the past decade plus UM the ability to support
themselves and represent their work digital digitally, and it also
gives UM beholder of these works to prove that their
owner of something that could be a cultural icon eventually

(24:27):
UM or possibly have some sort of value type to it. UM. So,
for example, if you are enthusiasts or tastemaker, that UM
can prove that you're an early supporter of someone like
Francis Bacon UM that definitely had social and economic value
over time. I think. So, you know, it's great to
support art and creativity and all that stuff, But what

(24:47):
if I just want to make a lot of money
because I see a lot of high price tags with
this stuff. How would one even go about trying to
anticipate what will be hot? Because there's just a Brazilian
n f t is being minted every second, I'm sure,
and most of the them are worth literally nothing. How
would you like think about this question or approach the
question of where lasting value would be. Yeah, it's a

(25:08):
good question. I mean, if you individually want to go
check out a marketplace UM that has these n f
t s and kind of pick what you like, you know,
based on your respective budget. I mean, there's you know,
zillions of amazing marketplaces like superer Open Sea. Uh. You
know what a doubt does really well is it kind
of cuts through the noise a little bit. So you

(25:28):
have this community of like sixty plus people come together
crowdsource these strategies, uh, you know, kind of figure out
what artists and and taste as a community they want
to basically signal to the rest of the general Internet. Um.
And I think that's kind of a special way to
to collect what's the latest thing that you guys from

(25:51):
a crowd source perspective chose to invest in. You able
to say like what type of media it was and
why you're still value in it. Yeah. I sually our
entire collection is publicly available, but um, you know, I
would say recently, the you know, the members of the
TAO have been really excited about something called crypto punks.
So they're like these ten thousand pixelated characters, um that

(26:15):
really represent different rarity traits. So it's almost like are
almost like collectibles and they're generating tons of value what
else besides simple art? I mean, so you have this image,
whether it's the crypto punk or the people people talk
about in game items or in world items that could
be valuable in some way, Like what are the sort

(26:36):
of like next types of assets. I guess that could
become important part of the n f T ecosystem. Yeah,
I mean, so there's I would say that the Flamingo
strategies actually span that as well. So you know what
we're talking about before. As far as digital art, there's
a lot of commissioning of digital art by this like
emergent Artist class online happening. Um. There's also as you mentioned,

(27:01):
like Crypto Punk's collectibles. UM. But you know, to your
to your point here with like gaming and metaverse is
there's quite a bit happening. So um. You know you
can imagine the amount of valt value that exists in
gaming today like Fortnite and others. Um, n f T
s in many ways give you the ability to unlock
that value. So um. You know with skins or fashion

(27:21):
online that people spend tons of money on, you can
kind of float from one metaverse to another. Um. You
can kind of signal that through a digital museum or gallery, um,
and kind of float from one space to another almost
like a ready player one type of uh kind of reality.
In some some regard very briefly, we've got about ninety seconds.

(27:42):
But do you worry that the frenzy and some of
the silliness dare I call it around n f T
is gonna be in any way a negative headwind for
n f T in the same way that decentralized tokens
were a couple of years ago. Yeah. I mean, I think,
just like really anything else, people are excite did about this,
there's a lot of new people coming in. Um, we're

(28:04):
seeing just an outpour of I mean, you mentioned New
York Times, Time Magazine, there's you know, every media, many
miny media outlets kind of playing around with this. I
think we're in early early days. Um, so we're gonna
see a bunch of awesome, amazing different things, but also
probably some kind of bizarre, you know things emerge with

(28:27):
people averaging n f T. So UM, I think that we,
like you mentioned before, we'll stay tuned as as uh
as the years go by, I'm sure we'll kind of
understand this landscape a little bit better. And that's it
for what you missed this week. If you like the show,
and make sure to subscribe and rate us an Apple
podcast or wherever you listen to podcast You can catch

(28:49):
our show every weekday from three thirty to five pm
on Bloomberg TV and from four to five pm on Twitter.
Thanks for listening and have a great week. Can Kick
the ca